trust__score_agent

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It explains the decay-weighted scoring, tier, and neutral prior for unknown agents, offering reasonable behavioral insight. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or idempotency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description uses two concise, informative sentences with no redundant content. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the return type (score and tier) and behavior for unknown agents, which is good for a simple query tool. However, the lack of parameter semantics and output schema info leaves gaps for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the only parameter 'agent_id' beyond implying it identifies the agent. The schema has no description for the property, and the tool description fails to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'agent's decay-weighted trust score and tier', and distinguishes from siblings like trust__history and trust__attest by explaining the scoring behavior and neutral prior for unknown agents.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use (to retrieve trust score and tier) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The neutral prior clarification is helpful for understanding appropriate use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.